Wolf,
Your point on response from ALSes is well taken.
Can we do it this way, can we keep an updated list of the confirmed
participants to the GA somewhere accessible to EURALO?
For other points, like for instance the ICANN regions, maybe better to have
separate threads, so that we could get all the comments in a compact way.
Cheers,
Roberto
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Wolf
Ludwig
Inviato: mercoledì 23 gennaio 2013 02:31
A: Discussion for At-Large Europe
Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Follow up on today's teleconference
Dear Roberto,
thanks a lot for your spontaneous comments on our today's telconf. what is
much appreciated. Please allow me to insert my remarks in your text below.
Roberto Gaetano wrote Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:21:
>A few comments.
>>Comments on the statements/consultation
>>I do appreciate the exhaustive report by Olivier, but I have the
>impression that we all are not contributing enough to the development
>of these statements.
>>Can we make an effort and comment on the consultations that are
>currently open?
(WL) Yes, you are right. it would be wishful and helpful for ALAC, if there
would be more inputs from our ALSes (or ALSes in general) to current ICANN
issues and ALAC consultations. This was - and still is - the basic idea
behind the RALO and regional bottom-up structure to get ideas and advice
from the representatives of the much-cited "end user". But to me, it was
somehow clear from the beginning that good or even best ideas won't work the
next day or in a short term. IMO, this is an empowering process (like in
democratic societies) where people need encouragements, more than formal
opportunities, enabling factors and environments to make use of their rights
... After five years at EURALO I have learned that this is a reciprocal
process where both sides (let's say ICANN at the top, ALSes at the bottom
line) have to match promises and expectations. And both is learning and work
in process.
>Participation of ALSes
>>Would it help to circulate the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes?
>>Oksana already indicated that she would contact a couple of
>organizations, maybe we can all help in this direction.
>>I think that I have heard at some point in time the name of Vittorio. I
>can check with him if the absence is due to a contingent situation or a
>loss of interest by ISOC Italy.
>>We can all make a few calls or emails, it would be good to use the GA
>as a chance to give new life to our RALO.
(WL) For reasons of politeness and discretion, I prefer not "to circulate
the list of the supposedly unresponsive ALSes" via this list but to contact
these people directly. In my 2nd GA reminder by the end of month these
members who have not responded to repeated invitations may be listed. And
YES, for the Lisbon F2F GA mobilization all of us are needed and can be
supportive! If you have a direct contact to one of our ALS reps., please
contact them directly (in the case of ISOC Italy perhaps Sébastien and you
-- Make assurance double sure). And you are right, the next GA is a great
chance "to give new life to our RALO"!
>Participation of individuals
>>(Disclaimer: I am an individual that does not belong to an ALS, so I
>may be in conflict of interest)
>>I agree that to have one ALS for all loose individuals is a suboptimal
>solution. However, can we start from here and secure at least this result?
>We can move forward when we have this operational.
>>I have always supported the importance of participation and ability to
>speak over ability to vote. Some other folks disagree. However, while
>we continue disagreeing on the need to revise the voting mechanism, can
>we agree on going forward with the "generic ALS" proposal that is on the
table?
(WL) As discussed tonight (there was an amazing exchange in the AC chat!),
the current solution via the creation of a "home ALS" for floating
individuals is "suboptimal" and won't be the end of discussion but just a
next pragmatic step to improve EURALO's involvement and participation of
individuals. Therefore, please move forward into this direction! And let's
discuss improved options at the Lisbon GA. What I simply would like to avoid
is the pre-EURALO hardcore dispute on *procedures* (2006-07) than on
*substance and content* -- I guess, this may ring a bell to you ;-) But I
think it's not so much about "ability to vote" and more about *equal
opportunities* for people contributing on a regular and reliable level
(either formal ALS reps or individuals).
>Travel to Lisbon and invitation of guest speakers
>>Following up to the discussion on the chat about Olivier participating
>to the EURALO GA, while I could share the astonishment of Oksana about
>the ALAC Chair not been funded for the trip, I have to admit that the
>rules are fairly clear: only delegates from the ALSes will be funded.
>This is connected to the participation of guest speakers: this requires
>additional funding.
(WL) I always said, Olivier's participation as ALAC Chair at our GA is
*indispensable" and I thought this question was solved tonight (as I am
funded for Lisbon by EuroDIG, I offered "my" travel slot to Olivier to
ensure his participation). Whether such funding rules could be improved is
another question but can't be changed until next summer for sure.
>The problem arises exclusively from the fact that we chose to have the
>GA as a separate venue from an ICANN meeting. We discussed this in the
>past, I am not criticizing the choice of privileging an event that
>would give us more possibility of outreach like EuroDIG, I am only
>noting that this advantage has also a drawback. On one hand we can
>contact people that would not participate to an ICANN meeting, and do
>outreach. On the other hand, we have difficulties (or additional costs)
>for having people that would have been available without problems at an
ICANN meeting.
(WL) Well, this is the same old story again (what I think I have noted
before already): After we always and repeatedly applied for F2F GAs in line
with ICANN meetings in Europe (Brussels in 2010, Prague in 2012) and our
proposals were not approved by ICANN, we decided to organize our (unfunded)
GAs in line with other major IG events in Europe -- such as the global IGF
2010 in Vilnius, EuroDIG 2011 in Belgrade and 2012 in Stockholm. What was a
sort of "stopgap" at the beginning showed some advantages for EURALO's
outreach over these years -- enhanced by the fact that EURALO became a key
driver for the EuroDIG process. I agree, both options (ICANN or EuroDIG)
have advantages and disadvantages (to be further discussed).
>Incidentally, as I commented on the chat, Francisco da Silva, TLG
>Liaison to the ICANN Board, is based in Lisbon. Besides having another
>Board member as keynote speaker, we could invite Francisco as well, at
>zero cost, and maybe dedicate some time of our AGM to the communication
>between ALAC and the technical community, of which the TLG is a component.
(WL) I am much in favor of inviting a "guest speaker" to our GA (Sébastien
wouldn't be a guest at EURALO but a founding member ;-) and let's reflect
about and suggest wishful candidates. But what I really would like to avoid
is a "row of eminences" (like at other RALO GAs in the past) or the usual
"show cases" where NO space and time is left for our own community
discussions and interaction -- what is a top priority to me at the moment!
>ICANN Regions
>>The main reason why ICANN has regions is for Board elections. And the
>ICANN Board will never use an arbitrary designation of regions, to avoid
problems.
>So, it will stick as much as possible with the UN Statistics
>definition, with minor adjustments only in the case of some powerful voice
yelling loud.
>If this happens, we find ourselves with things like some Pacific
>Islands being in Europe.
>>This said, other components of the ICANN community have some
>flexibility. In the chat we discussed the status of Armenia. Well, if
>you go to the site of the Armenian NIC (https://www.amnic.net/) you see
>that it is a member of RIPE (as Armenian addressing organization) and a
>member of CENTR (as Armenian TLD). Why cannot ALAC have the same
>flexibility in the allocation of an ALS to a RALO? This is a fight worth
fighting, IMHO.
>>Of course, there are limitations. If you look carefully at the ccNSO
>and ASO, you discover that the composition of the Councils and the
>election of the ICANN Board members do indeed respect rigorously the
>geographical distribution. Moreover, the ccNSO site shows the national
>ccTLD members as belonging to the ICANN Region (see
>http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm), even if then they have the
>flexibility to join a regional organization that is not the one to
>which they belong geographically.
>>I have always insisted on the fact that we have great potential for
>outreach and collaboration with ccTLDs: the regional organization is
>one example where this communication can be extremely useful.
(WL) The rubbery and unrewarding discussion on ICANN's regional model is
always reaffirming where the model comes from and why it's stupid and
inflexible as it is ... and when nothing changes, it's getting boring. In
fact, we drafted a EURALO statement on the regions (what was in vain again
-- see attachment) where we highlighted other European perceptions (like CoE
and other models) and special cases like Armenia etc. IMO, it would bring NO
harm to the ICANN model to provide a certain flexibility for special cases
to choose and decide about their regional affiliation ...
>As a side note, I will most probably be in the Caucasus area around the
>second half of May, I will be ready to spend some time in visiting the
>ALSes and ccTLDs in the region. I believe we have an ALS in Armenia and
>one in Azerbaijan, but none in Georgia.
(WL) Your support is always welcome, Roberto!
Thanks again and kind regards,
Wolf
EuroDIG Secretariat
http://www.eurodig.org/
mobile +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn
http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig